Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

[Anenome]

@hashem

You have refused to address the fundamental libertarian point: property rights.

I think rather we’ve applied it consistently.

@hashem

The fetus has no property right in the mother or her resources.

This is mere assertion, not rationale nor a logical chain of reasoning. It is however the necessary belief required for you to make your point, so I suppose it’s not surprising that you’re trying to pass it as a given. But I think it if you try to explain how you arrived at this point you’ll hit so many internal contradictions that you’ll be convinced otherwise. You’ve also refused to address my points refuting several aspects of this repeated phrase.

@hashem

Nobody (if not the mother) has any property right in the fetus.

If the fetus is human then it owns itself.

Have you anything new to say or are you just in cut’n’paste mode. This whole post has been little more than repeating your past argument without addressing anything I’ve said regarding these same arguments. I don’t think you’re being honest here.

[Anenome]

@Seraiah

Removing a parasite from its host is by definition harmful to a parasite. The question then is whether or not it is justified. As this “parasite” is the early stages of an innocent human being, and as the mother must initiate force against the child in order to expel him, and as the initiation of force is aggression, and as libertarianism holds that all aggression is illegitimate, it follows that abortion is illegitimate in principle under libertarian assumptions.

Note, Hasem, that this is why the NAP supports the pro-life argument, not yours as you claim.

@Seraiah

Aenome
Therefore, if a child results from sex, both parents have accepted the obligation of having that child.

This is not my position. Even if the mother did not consent, she has an obligation to avoid doing harm to the child. Any other position is not consistent with the non-aggression principle.

I agree with your point on that, but I have been specifically excluding cases of non-consensual sex, altho I feel the NAP still applies as you do. The aggressor in that situation is the rapist whom should be punished, not the non-aggressor child that may result.

@Seraiah

hashem
2. A fetus doesn’t have rights because:
A) it’s not an individual

Someone else stated this before. What’s the relevance of this? When we look at a murder case do we really ask “Was the victim an individual?”
No, we don’t, because it’s irrelevant.

I think he was really trying to say it’s not an individual… it’s a part of the mother’s body. In other words, denying the individual rights of the unborn.

@Seraiah

hashem
B: Nobody has any recourse, because nobody but the mother “owns” the fetus. If we accept the principle that people can have recourse even when they’re property isn’t involved, then surely all of libertarianism is lost. So it’s a nonissue, even if people decide it’s rude.

Then all of libertarianism is lost, for all murders are prosecuted by those that are not the victim.

Haha, this guy has no capacity to see how his ideas lead to immediate and ridiculous corollaries that are completely untenable.

[hashem]

Let me first ask, where do you get your views on rights from? If we disagree on the fundamentals of rights, which we clearly do, then the argument is over. We’ve presented our cases.

In my understanding (to be distinguished from opinion or feeling):
Rights are property rights, no other system of rights can be A) objectively true, a priori and B) perfectly consistent. Do we disagree yet? If we do, then it was fun while it lasted.

If not, the next question is why do humans have property rights, which answer deals with the fact of scarcity.

[Anenome]

@hashem

Let me first ask, where do you get your views on rights from? If we disagree on the fundamentals of rights, which we clearly do, then the argument is over. We’ve presented our cases.

It’s certainly an important question within political philosophy. I accept that rights are natural, inalienable, intrinsic to human beings by nature, by fact, by reality. I use reality as my epistemological foundation for rights–what other possible final authority could there be besides reality? (I swear, people need to work on their epistemology).

Rights are natural in the sense that they are what people are by nature. This is observable. We observe human beings are individual, living, property-requiring, thinking, speaking, free acting, decision-makers (not an exhaustive list).

The left likes to say that these rights are not inalienable because “they can be taken away by law, and have been taken away legally by many governemnts.” But that’s a serious fallacy. You don’t not take away a person’s intrinsic ability to control themselves, even if you make them a slave. A slave can only be compelled to do what another desires via the mechanism of consequences and punishment, threat of injury and pain. The slave is not directly controlled, he is forced, coerced to obey. Thus, he has not lost his intrinsic ability to control himself, he is simply in an overpowered position where he can no longer use his body in ways he would choose if he were not being continually coerced.

As a further example, to say rights can be legally taken away and thus alienated would be analogous to saying that murder could be made legal and would then be ethically correct. This does not work in fact and destroys the idea that rights are mere social construct and therefore supposedly infinitely mutable.

Rights are more like math. We discovered that 1+1=2. No amount of legislation can change that. It is a natural law that cannot be changed. Similarly, no law will ever change the facts of the condition of human beings at all stages in their life, of self-direction, and self-ownership.

@hashem

In my understanding (to be distinguished from opinion or feeling):
Rights are property rights, no other system of rights can be A) objectively true, a priori and B) perfectly consistent. Do we disagree yet? If we do, then it was fun while it lasted.

I agree that all rights are property-based, sure. However, such a concept of rights is only cogent if applied on an individual basis. And one of the corollaries is that if you own yourself you’re responsible for the effects of your actions and choices, whether intended or not. If you accidentally crash your car into someone else’s car while driving, you are obligated to repair the damage and make it right. You just wanted to drive, you didn’t intend to crash into another. However, you can’t simply murder the damaged party to get out of that obligation to fix their car! That’s a perfectly equivalent analogy to what’s happening in abortion (minus the cars).

The only difference between the damaged car-owner you’ve crashed into and an unborn fetus is age, and if you do not show that age can somehow remove a human being’s quality of self-ownership and individual rights then you have no case.

@hashem

If not, the next question is why do humans have property rights, which answer deals with the fact of scarcity.

Not really. Human beings would have rights even if there were no scarcity. For one thing, there is not equal scarcity among all goods. There is no scarcity of air, nor of seawater, to name just two examples.

If there were no scarcity at all, would it still be wrong to murder someone? Yes. So why, how could scarcity even be a factor in the application of rights to a human being?

Just for fun, I saw this today:

[Wheylous]

On the bright side this argument has given me a way to bring people to modern conservatism from modern liberalism:

Democrats are typically pro-choice. Obviously, they believe the mother has no obligation to feed the fetus. Hence, if even family ties do not matter to them, then how are entitlements in any way justified? BAM. Pro-choice makes people conservative, a decent step towards libertarian.

I have recently come to find a way to make property rights lead to self-ownership through homesteading.

1. Assume property rights.

2. Person is born. He can control his body. Hence he homesteads his body

3. Homesteading leads to ownership, hence self-ownership

Is this a bad line of reasoning?

If not, then a baby acting in the womb might be enough for it to homestead itself, creating self-ownership.

[hashem]

Anenome,

You don’t understand rights well enough to be arguing about them. Rights are property rules for scarce resources, relevant only to self-owners, and thus only applicable to humans capable of acting and thinking. No libertarians I’m aware of dispute this, from natural rights advocates like Rothbard and Block, to demonstrated rights advocates like Hoppe and Kinsella—not to imply that the various views are inherently incompatible. And since you haven’t given any sources I’m going to assume you’re just making stuff up.

“The concept of “rights” only makes sense as property rights.”
*—*Rothbard
“After all, a property right is simply the exclusive right to control a scarce resource.”
—Kinsella

As for self-ownership, that is also agreed to derive from the fact of possession—not to imply that a fetus is a self or an individual, or even capable of possessing anything or being an owner, which it definitively is not. Often libertarians jump straight to self-ownership and start from their, forgetting why we are self-owners.

Property title has to be assigned to one of competing claimants based on “the existence of an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between owner and the” resource claimed. In the case of one’s own body, it is the unique relationship between a person and his body—his direct and immediate control over his body…Libertarianism recognizes that only the self-ownership rule is universalizable and compatible with the goals of peace, cooperation, and conflict-avoidance. We recognize that each person is prima facie the owner of his own body because, by virtue of his unique link to and connection with his own body—his direct and immediate control over it—he has a better claim to it than anyone else…Thus, the libertarian position on property rights is that, in order to permit conflict-free, productive use of scarce resources, property titles to particular resources are assigned to particular owners. As noted above, however, the title assignment must not be random, arbitrary, or particularistic; instead, it has to be assigned based on “the existence of an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between owner” and the resource claimed. As can be seen from the considerations presented above, the link is the physical transformation or embordering of the original homesteader, or a chain of title traceable by contract back to him.
—Kinsella, Hoppe

A fetus doesn’t have rights because it can’t act to acquire property, nor does it need to.

MY POINT, however, is not whether the fetus is a self-owner and therefore a rights-having human.

I’m arguing that in an abortion, nobody’s (if not the mother’s) property is violated, and therefore nobody has the right of retaliation. Anything done to the mother is a new crime, in perfect violation of the non-aggression principle, which says that noone may initiate force or the threat of force against the person or property of another.

[hashem]

Wheylous,

I have recently come to find a way to make property rights lead to self-ownership through homesteading.

1. Assume property rights.

2. Person is born. He can control his body. Hence he homesteads his body

3. Homesteading leads to ownership, hence self-ownership

Is this a bad line of reasoning?

If not, then a baby acting in the womb might be enough for it to homestead itself, creating self-ownership.

No, this is not a bad line of reasoning, in fact it’s precisely what I’ve been saying (And every major libertarian thinker I’m aware of).

Notice your second point, which you admittedly realized. Being born (i.e. out of the mother’s body, no longer dependent on umbilical cord or mother’s resources) preceeds his ability to act in order to homestead his body. You recognize the requisite action, hence also your last statement—which would be true except an unborn fetus is precisely not a self. The point is that we agree a fetus doesn’t have rights, nor could it.

If it can be argued the fetus was anyone’s property, it would be the mother’s, and she’s not going to prosecute herself. If the mother is A and the fetus is B, the only question left is whether C, D, E etc. have a property right in the matter, such that aborting the fetus would be a crime against C, D, E etc. No, they obviously don’t have any property involved, and so the entire argument is moot. The worst than can justly be done to the mother is ostracism, which I think is too much since it’s not a violation of ANYONE’S rights (if not the mother’s) to abort a fetus.

[Wheylous]

Yay for line of reasoning. Sort of.

You seem to be beginning with the assumption that the fetus is not a self, not proving it. Why is action in the womb not enough for homesteading (which is vaguely defined anyway).

[hashem]

• self
• individual

Action in the womb isn’t enough because the behavior is meaningless to us except how we interpret it. The fetus can’t act in any comprehensible way.

[Anenome]

@hashem

Anenome, You don’t understand rights well enough to be arguing about them.

That may be true but we shall see I’m not taking the word of a guy who’s been consistently arguing that a human being does not have a right to life, nor to itself.

@hashem

Rights are property rules for scarce resources, relevant only to self-owners, and thus only applicable to humans capable of acting and thinking. No libertarians I’m aware of dispute this, from natural rights advocates like Rothbard and Block, to demonstrated rights advocates like Hoppe and Kinsella—not to imply that the various views are inherently incompatible. And since you haven’t given any sources I’m going to assume you’re just making stuff up.

Listen, rights as a legal concept are necessary in a world of scarce resources. But you seemed to imply that in a world of unlimited resources we wouldn’t have rights. That’s patently false, unless you consider that harm, destruction, and death were impossible in such a world. Then in that case you’re ruling out aggression, in which case there’s no need for rights, I suppose.

@hashem

“The concept of “rights” only makes sense as property rights.”
*—*Rothbard
“After all, a property right is simply the exclusive right to control a scarce resource.”
—Kinsella

Yes, I agree with these concepts. Why are you quoting them when you’re unwilling to apply them to the situation at issue in a consistent manner.

Right are property rights–ye, but whose right is it? The right of a human being. And the first property we all own IS OURSELVES. So again, unless you can explain why age affects property rights, you cannot argue that a young human being does not own itself, and thus an abortion is both murder and aggression.

@hashem

As for self-ownership, that is also agreed to derive from the fact of possession—not to imply that a fetus is a self or an individual, or even capable of possessing anything or being an owner, which it definitively is not. Often libertarians jump straight to self-ownership and start from their, forgetting why we are self-owners.

All living human being posses their body / own their body as an intrinsic fact of nature. In fact, your body is inseparable from you while you are alive, with murder being considered depriving one of the possession of life itself. If you accept human rights and the NAP, as you say, then you must also agree that no human being can legitimately OWN another human being. Thus the mother cannot own the child, ever, and the child possesses its body from the moment it becomes both living and human, making it at that instant a human being. When is that point medically? Clearly it is conception, when the first cell is formed which is neither mother nor father, but a third separate and distinct entity.

@hashem

Property title has to be assigned to one of competing claimants based on “the existence of an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between owner and the” resource claimed. In the case of one’s own body, it is the unique relationship between a person and his body—his direct and immediate control over his body…Libertarianism recognizes that only the self-ownership rule is universalizable and compatible with the goals of peace, cooperation, and conflict-avoidance. We recognize that each person is prima facie the owner of his own body because, by virtue of his unique link to and connection with his own body—his direct and immediate control over it—he has a better claim to it than anyone else…Thus, the libertarian position on property rights is that, in order to permit conflict-free, productive use of scarce resources, property titles to particular resources are assigned to particular owners. As noted above, however, the title assignment must not be random, arbitrary, or particularistic; instead, it has to be assigned based on “the existence of an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between owner” and the resource claimed. As can be seen from the considerations presented above, the link is the physical transformation or embordering of the original homesteader, or a chain of title traceable by contract back to him.
—Kinsella, Hoppe

Why are you continually quoting things that destroy your argument?

@hashem

A fetus doesn’t have rights because it can’t act to acquire property, nor does it need to.

Completely false! A fetus has already acquired its first property at the moment of conception, it’s OWN BODY. How can you not see that.

@hashem

MY POINT, however, is not whether the fetus is a self-owner and therefore a rights-having human.

I’m arguing that in an abortion, nobody’s (if not the mother’s) property is violated, and therefore nobody has the right of retaliation. Anything done to the mother is a new crime, in perfect violation of the non-aggression principle, which says that noone may initiate force or the threat of force against the person or property of another.

Which is why abortion is wrong, murder, and a violation of the NAP, because the fetus is a self-owner. And abortion is aggression against it. And all of society has the right to punish murderers, not merely the one aggressed against, since in all cases of murder the agressee is dead.

Try again, sir.

[hashem]

But you seemed to imply that in a world of unlimited resources we wouldn’t have rights.
Your body and the space it takes up would still be scarce.

And the first property we all own IS OURSELVES.
And original ownership, as we have seen, requires action and the ability to communicate that ownership. And a self, according to a dictionary, is:
• a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality
and and individual is:
• a single human being, as distinguished from a group, a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being

We don’t have rights by virtue of our DNA, as you believe but have failed to prove. You’re just making that up which is why you refuse to provide any sort of honest reference and you feel threatened by mine. As pointed out above, we have rights when there is conflict over a scarce resource (a fetus isn’t capable of conflict, because it isn’t capable of action) by demonstrating direct and immediate control over our body in a way that others can comprehend and not just interpret. A fetus isn’t a self, and it can’t be an owner because it can’t act. It doesn’t have property rights.

But that isn’t the point, the point is that nobody has a right to retaliate against the mother because nobody’s property was involved, and we’re talking about PROPERTY RIGHTS, not random force and mob rule. Even if you believe abortion is murder, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Why are you continually quoting things that destroy your argument?
That’s not an answer.

A fetus has already acquired its first property at the moment of conception, it’s OWN BODY. How can you not see that.
Acquire: to come into possession or ownership of; get as one’s own; to gain for oneself through one’s actions or effort
A fetus cannot act, so it can’t possess and therefore it can’t own. PLUS, it is by definition NOT a self. Property also implies action.

Which is why abortion is wrong
No, I’ve demonstrated a fetus cannot have property.

And all of society has the right to punish murderers
No. Society doesn’t have rights; individuals have rights.

[Anenome]

@hashem

And the first property we all own IS OURSELVES.
And original ownership, as we have seen, requires action and the ability to communicate that ownership.

No it doesn’t. You own yourself because you, by nature, control yourself. That control cannot be divested from you, is intrinsic to you as human being. You do not appropriate your self-ownership either by action (what would be acted upon?) nor by communication (what would be communicated?). If you decided those were essential you’d have to support that beyond mere assertion.

@hashem

And a self, according to a dictionary, is:
• a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality
and and individual is:
• a single human being, as distinguished from a group, a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being

We don’t have rights by virtue of our DNA, as you believe but have failed to prove.

The nature of human DNA is to build a human being which has self-direction and thereby self-ownership. DNA isn’t the clincher for rights, but it does play a part of determining human nature. DNA does, however, prove you’re an individual, separate human being–same is true of the fetus. If this weren’t true, then what point makes one an individual? Birth? A child can be birthed at any point, in fact that point is continually moving earlier for survivability and may eventually be removed entirely. What then?

@hashem

You’re just making that up which is why you refuse to provide any sort of honest reference and you feel threatened by mine.

Au contraire. My reference is reality. It’s obvious that we control ourselves, it is a given. No one else could possibly control our body, so ownership is both absolute and inalienable.

@hashem

As pointed out above, we have rights when there is conflict over a scarce resource

This is only one application of rights. You’re dropping the context of that application as if that were the only time one has rights. THat is incorrect. Rights are the concept we use to govern interaction between people. If both fetus and mother are people, then rights are at issue. Both are human. Furthermore, you cannot give me an example of a human being that does not have rights, nor can you offer any cogent rationale for why youth should take away human rights? You haven’t addressed the age question once so far.

@hashem

(a fetus isn’t capable of conflict, because it isn’t capable of action)

Say a baby was born in a coma–incapable of action. Does that mean it deserves no rights and can be murdered at will?

You will not be able to escape the fact that human rights exist intrinsically and are not contingent on either action nor communication. You continually fail to consistently apply those principles.

If humans only had rights when acting or communicating then they would lose their rights when not doing both.

But human rights are not things that flick in or out of existence. They exist at all points in time as long as a person is ALIVE, and HUMAN.

@hashem

But that isn’t the point, the point is that nobody has a right to retaliate against the mother because nobody’s property was involved, and we’re talking about PROPERTY RIGHTS, not random force and mob rule. Even if you believe abortion is murder, two wrongs don’t make a right.

It is not a wrong to prosecute another for murder. Your value system is twisted, and it’s clear you are simply saying anything you can to justify your predetermined conclusion, without any systematic or principled consistent stance.

@hashem

A fetus has already acquired its first property at the moment of conception, it’s OWN BODY. How can you not see that.
Acquire: to come into possession or ownership of; get as one’s own; to gain for oneself through one’s actions or effort
A fetus cannot act, so it can’t possess and therefore it can’t own. PLUS, it is by definition NOT a self. Property also implies action.

Suppose the uncle of a newborn has died and left all of his fortune to the newborn. The newborn cannot act, cannot speak. Is he not therefore the owner? No, he is the owner of that fortune. There have been many newborns, even those not yet born, who were already wealthy. Your argument is not consistent therefore, as I can easily come up with an example where your principle does not hold.
To “come into possession” in the case of a fetus is the same thing as “come into existence.” The moment it exists, it possesses its body. Its body from that point does not act consciously, but does in fact age biologically–if it did not it would die.

@hashem

And all of society has the right to punish murderers

No. Society doesn’t have rights; individuals have rights.

Yes, but I think it’s obvious that society is composed of individuals and my point was that every single person in a society has the right to punish murder, and they do so collectively under the auspices of law.

[hashem]

EDIT: Apologize for the large font, its not me making it huge.

Does that mean it deserves no rights
Fallacy, whether it deserves them or not is irrelevent. The question is whether it HAS them, and obviously it doesn’t. Rights aren’t something we give away when we feel all warm and emotional. Rights are a logical construct, and if the logic fails the rights are false. Maybe that seems harsh, but the attrocities that you justify by abandoning principle will be much worse.

You continually fail to consistently apply those principles.
No. I’ve proved AND applied principles logically and consistently. YOU have failed to prove anything except your ignorance and that you have a strong opinion.

They exist at all points in time as long as a person is ALIVE, and HUMAN.
That’s a conclusion, not an argument, and mere opinion to boot. Present a logical argument derived from an axiom. Jumping from humans have human DNA > therefore humans have property rights, ignores the concepts of property and the concept of rights and probably violates all kinds of rules of logic that I’m too lazy to call out individually. Calling your opinion “reality” and then moving on won’t do.

it’s clear you are simply saying anything you can to justify your predetermined conclusion, without any systematic or principled consistent stance.
—Anenome, August 2011; in an argument where he would say anything to justifiy his predetermined conclusion without presenting any systematic evidence other than, admittedly, his opinion of “reality”. Luckily, rights don’t derive from his opinion of reality.

every single person in a society has the right to punish murder
Correction, every single person in a society has the right to punish murder when their property is involved. Remember, rights are property rights.

================================================================

The newborn cannot act, cannot speak. Is he not therefore the owner? No, he is the owner of that fortune.
True, he is not presently the owner, because it isn’t clear that he understands the arrangement and has agreed to it voluntarily. The sorts of attrocities your system would lead to… However, certainly nobody else is the owner except for the temporary holder, the agent designated by the uncle to hold the fortune until such a time as the baby is free to make a judgement on whether he wants the fortune when he is capable of doing so. Having someone temporarily care for your inheretence is common in the example you mentioned, indeed it’s a legal necessity, but you failed to mention that…
Your argument is not consistent therefore, as I can easily come up with an example where your principle does not hold.
You mean YOUR version of my argument. The examples you are using are fallacious in themselves, and they tend to expose your ignorance, and I mean that literally not as an offense.

[Anenome]

@hashem

Does that mean it deserves no rights
Fallacy, whether it deserves them or not is irrelevent.

The question is whether it age can interfere with a human being’s possession of rights. Address that.

@hashem

The question is whether it HAS them, and obviously it doesn’t.

Once again your argument constitutes nothing more than assuming your case.

@hashem

Rights are a logical construct, and if the logic fails the rights are false. Maybe that seems harsh, but the attrocities that you justify by abandoning principle will be much worse.

Rights are not merely a logical construct, they are a legal aknowledgment of physical reality. Posession of a human body is a physical reality, not a construct. Rights or good or bad as legal definitions in accordance with how closely that reflect reality.

@hashem

They exist at all points in time as long as a person is ALIVE, and HUMAN.
That’s a conclusion, not an argument, and mere opinion to boot. Present a logical argument derived from an axiom. Jumping from humans have human DNA > therefore humans have property rights, ignores the concepts of property and the concept of rights and probably violates all kinds of rules of logic that I’m too lazy to call out individually. Calling your opinion “reality” and then moving on won’t do.

I did this. Systematically. I proved the fetus is alive. Proved it was individual. Proved it was human. Proved it possessed its own body. The rest follows. It has human rights, it owns its own body.

@hashem

—Anenome, August 2011; in an argument where he would say anything to justifiy his predetermined conclusion without presenting any systematic evidence other than, admittedly, his opinion of “reality”. Luckily, rights don’t derive from his opinion of reality.

Reality is reality. If you can argue against any of the observations of reality I listed, then do so. However, they are not mere opinions, they are facts of reality. It is not an opinion that DNA proves that the fetus is not of the same flesh, not of the same body, as the mother. It is not an opinion that no one controls a body except yourself, and that clearly a fetus is in control of its own body, both unconscious control and conscious control (that is, its DNA builds itself, not the mother, and its brain controls its kicking legs prebirth. Also, we know that fetuses have a limited form of consciousness prior to birth).

Your denial that reality must be our starting point just shows a failure of your epistemological method. All reasoning must begin from what reality shows or we have nothing.

@hashem

every single person in a society has the right to punish murder
Correction, every single person in a society has the right to punish murder when their property is involved. Remember, rights are property rights.

What are you talking about. Are you really this naive? How is anyone else’s property disturbed when someone’ murdered? Can you really not see that the corollary of this statement is that murder could never be prosecuted lawfully, because the only on that would have standing is the person who’s been murdered? And you don’t see how that invalidates your rationale utterly? The fact is, ANYONE can step in to protect another who is being aggressed against, not just in the cast of murder, but theft, physical harm, or any other aggression being foisted on a non-aggressor. To deny this is to show your extreme naivete in political philosophy.

@hashem

True, he is not presently the owner, because it isn’t clear that he understands the arrangement and has agreed to it voluntarily. The sorts of attrocities your system would lead to…

Such as… what. Your seriously saying my system would lead to atrocities when you’re the one sitting here saying murder shouldn’t be punished by anyone?

@hashem

However, certainly nobody else is the owner except for the temporary holder, the agent designated by the uncle to hold the fortune until such a time as the baby is free to make a judgement on whether he wants the fortune when he is capable of doing so.

Exactly. So who has the duty of guardianship over the baby’s body until they can come into conscious and intentional possession? The mother. Does the uncle in our example have the right to steal away the newborn’s fortune just because he’s the guardian of it? No. Neither does the mother have the right to thieve the child of its physical body by destroying it.
Thank you for proving my case and destroying your own in one single stroke.

@hashem

but you failed to mention that…
Your argument is not consistent therefore, as I can easily come up with an example where your principle does not hold.
You mean YOUR version of my argument. The examples you are using are fallacious in themselves, and they tend to expose your ignorance, and I mean that literally not as an offense.

Just because I don’t accept normative ethics or the silly concept of acting/speaking as a conferral of rights doens’t make me ignorant.

[hashem]

The question is whether it age can interfere with a human being’s possession of rights. Address that.
Property requires action regardless of age.

Once again your argument constitutes nothing more than assuming your case.
Coming from you that’s funny.

Posession of a human body is a physical reality
Not for a fetus, which isn’t capable of possession. The mother is the only one who can be said to possess the fetus and exercise direct and immediate control over it (as nature intended).

[I] Proved it was individual.
And the dictionary proved you wrong.

[I] Proved it possessed its own body.
No, you said it did. But I don’t believe you. Define possession, and prove that a fetus is capable of it. Do SOMETHING besides stating your opinion or I’m done, this is boring.

Your seriously saying my system would lead to atrocities
The idea that a being who relies fully on a person’s continued support, and who can communicate nothing, and who can’t act, and who couldn’t understand action, and who doesn’t need to act, and who is manifestly not an individual, can have not only property, but property rights, more rights than his host, is the most attrocious misconception of property and rights I’ve seen.

So who has the duty of guardianship over the baby’s body until they can come into conscious and intentional possession?
Exactly. Nobody who doesn’t want to, unless you advocate slavery (one of the attrocities implicit in your system).

Neither does the mother have the right to thieve the child of its physical body by destroying it.
The fetus doesn’t have property rights, and by definition it doesn’t (and can’t) own a body.

Just because I don’t accept normative ethics or the silly concept of acting/speaking as a conferral of rights doens’t make me ignorant.
No, being ignorant makes you ignorant. Please, use some references/sources or we’re done.

Thank you for proving my case and destroying your own in one single stroke.
Wow arrogant…

[Anenome]

@hashem

Property requires action regardless of age.

This is a very general assertion. Care to support? In what way does “property require action”? I can give you some easy examples where title / ownership can pass to another without any action on their party. For instance, someone can be left money in a will, and the moment that person dies the person named in the will now owns what’s been left to them. Where’s the action there.

A fetus is freely given its body by both father and mother and then supported in life by the mother.

@hashem

Posession of a human body is a physical reality
Not for a fetus, which isn’t capable of possession. The mother is the only one who can be said to possess the fetus and exercise direct and immediate control over it (as nature intended).

Is the fetus human? If so you’re supporting the idea of slavery or ownership of human beings. If the fetus is human, why can’t it own or possess things? Clearly it possesses its own body, for if it does not possess its body then it is not alive. Clearly it is alive. The mother in fact biologically exerts no control over the body of the fetus. The fetus constructus itself from nutrients passed to it by the mother’s body.

If you agree that the fetus is human then you need to explain why being merely young means it can’t own or possess anything. If the fetus is not human, according to you, you need to explain what principle or fact of reality makes it human at what point and why that would be.

@hashem

Proved it possessed its own body.
No, you said it did. But I don’t believe you.

Naturally. And yet it does, as a fact of biology, own and possess its own body. As a human it cannot be owned by anyone else. As a living being it owns its own body as all living beings do. Control is a function of ownership, and no one but the being inside a body can control that body, proving self-ownership. This is simple phsyical reality, unassaibly so.

@hashem

Define possession, and prove that a fetus is capable of it. Do SOMETHING besides stating your opinion or I’m done, this is boring.

All I’m asking you to do is to admit what’s plain from reality itself. A human being cannot be owned by anyone but itself. If you disagree with that–you’re not a humanist. If you submit it’s not a human being–you face the bald facts of reality, that a fetus possesses human DNA and cannot be anything by human. If you try to submit it’s not alive–you face the fact that it is biologically alive.

These are not opinions, these are the facts of reality and their consequences and logical corollaries. Facts you’re incapable of arguing against because they are objective realities.

@hashem

Your seriously saying my system would lead to atrocities
The idea that a being who relies fully on a person’s continued support, and who can communicate nothing, and who can’t act, and who couldn’t understand action, and who doesn’t need to act, and who is manifestly not an individual, can have not only property, but property rights, more rights than his host, is the most attrocious misconception of property and rights I’ve seen.

This idea of having “more rights than the mother” is a ridiculous assertion. I attack abortion on the principle of wholly equal rights. One human being cannot lawfully kill another human being.

Beyond which, the mother has accepted the existence of the child by engaging in an act which leads to pregnancy. Therefore it is not an abridgment of the mother’s right to herself and her body. Even were it a product of rape, the guilty party would be the rapist, not the resulting child.

You’re suggesting a world where murder is acceptable and doing all you can to sidestep the fact of it.

@hashem

So who has the duty of guardianship over the baby’s body until they can come into conscious and intentional possession?
Exactly. Nobody who doesn’t want to, unless you advocate slavery (one of the attrocities implicit in your system).

So if a caretaker is taking care of an elderly person and they don’t want to anymore, they can simply walk away and allow the elderly patient to die without moral culpability? How is that any good.

@hashem

Neither does the mother have the right to thieve the child of its physical body by destroying it.
The fetus doesn’t have property rights, and by definition it doesn’t (and can’t) own a body.

Seriously, more unsupported assertions. Do you have any rationale, any pricniple for this belief at all. Any at all.

@hashem

Please, use some references/sources or we’re done.

As I said, my reference is reality itself. The ultimate reference. I need no other.

[hashem]

This is a very general assertion. Care to support? In what way does “property require action”?
The definition of property. Non-acting, uncommunicating beings can’t acquire property, not that they would have any property rights either way.

A fetus is freely given its body by both father and mother and then supported in life by the mother.
Unless and until it isn’t.

If so you’re supporting the idea of slavery or ownership of human beings.
Slavey is a violation of property rights, which a fetus can’t have.

If the fetus is human, why can’t it own or possess things?
Because it can’t act, and doesn’t need to act. We’re going in circles…

The mother in fact biologically exerts no control over the body of the fetus.
This is empirically wrong. The mother, in plain fact, is the only person who exerts direct and immediate control, and therefore possession, of the fetus. Ownership is the right to possess, possession is the fact of direct and immediate control.

If you agree that the fetus is human then you need to explain why being merely young means it can’t own or possess anything. If the fetus is not human, according to you, you need to explain what principle or fact of reality makes it human at what point and why that would be.
Human rights are fallacious, as you’ve demonstrated quite thoroughly. Only property rights are consistent (and only property rights can be proved from an axiom). A fetus can’t have property.

A human being cannot be owned by anyone but itself.
Because it has a property and a property right in its self. None of these mean anything to a fetus.

I attack abortion on the principle of wholly equal rights.
Then you start from a fallacy, as I’ve demonstrated. A fetus doesn’t have rights.

You’re suggesting a world where murder is acceptable and doing all you can to sidestep the fact of it.
No. I’m saying a fetus doesn’t have property rights, and that nobody else has a property right in the matter. Nearly all murders can involve property and therefore someone can prosecute. This isn’t true for a fetus.

So if a caretaker is taking care of an elderly person and they don’t want to anymore, they can simply walk away and allow the elderly patient to die without moral culpability? How is that any good.
Fallacy, we’re talking about property rights not the morals of dealing with the elderly. Under no circumstances is slavery permissible, and this is no exception. That’s the point of libertarianism: there are no exceptions, not for fetuses, and not for grandmas. Rights are property rights, for individual, thinking, acting humans.

Do you have any rationale, any pricniple for this belief at all. Any at all.
Unlike you, yes, a dictionary, which I referenced several times above (you must have ignored it) and which I’ve directed you to repeatedly.

As I said, my reference is reality itself. The ultimate reference. I need no other.
Then, as Rothbard said, you can argue with yourself.

[Wheylous]

So if a caretaker is taking care of an elderly person and they don’t want to anymore, they can simply walk away and allow the elderly patient to die without moral culpability? How is that any good.

I disagree that there are “natural caretakers,” at least in the sense of old people. Family ties do not mean that you must care for your relatives. If you enter into a contract, yes. But there is no natural obligation. The only place where natural obligations could exist is parents toward children, and that is because children aren’t completely self-sufficient. But even there I am hesitant to say that there are obligations past say age 10, IF there are any at all.

[Seraiah]

Anenome
I agree with your point on that, but I have been specifically excluding cases of non-consensual sex, altho I feel the NAP still applies as you do. The aggressor in that situation is the rapist whom should be punished, not the non-aggressor child that may result.

I guess we’re on the same page then. Though I disagree with some positions off topic, including the idea that the non-aggression principle would be important in a place with no scarcity.
Though I think it’s just semantics, really. A place with no scarcity is hardly concievable as you’d have to imagine a world in which you were not restricted to any one place, to any one body, to any one mindset. In fact a place with no scarcity is impossible to differentiate from an absolute vacuum in space, and certainly the NAP would serve no purpose there. Heck, it couldn’t even exist, as the formulation of ideas implies scarcity.

So I guess that’s just a drawn out way of saying I think you have a very firm handle on why libertarianism and pro-choice can’t co-exist without assuming a new (unnecessary) axiom.

hashem
Ownership is the right to possess, possession is the fact of direct and immediate control.

I challenge you to more thoroughly defend this, as I suspect you don’t actually believe it.

I would also like you to show me where one first turns into a human being, and what happens in that moment that turns the valueless mass of flesh into a human being.

[Wheylous]

I challenge you to more thoroughly defend this, as I suspect you don’t actually believe it.

That’s an arbitrary rebuttal… Can you explain what you believe he doesn’t believe?